IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v187y2021ics0308521x20308544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fodder beet to support early and late lactation milk production from pasture, is it worth the risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Fleming, Anita
  • Dalley, Dawn
  • Bryant, Racheal H.
  • Edwards, Grant
  • Gregorini, Pablo

Abstract

High yielding crops such as maize (Zea mays L.) and fodder beet (FB; Beta vulgaris L), are commonly used to extend lactation and increase animal productivity from pastoral dairy systems. Financial modelling to compare costs and benefits of different crops is useful for decision making, but such modelling often fails to account for potential animal health risks which can be associated with feeding supplements. A multi-component, whole-farm modelling approach was used to predict milk solids (MS, milk fat + protein) production and the economic farm surplus (EFS: operating surplus – adjustments) between 2016 and 2018 for an irrigated farm in Canterbury (South Island) and a non-irrigated farm in the Waikato (North Island), of New Zealand. The financial risk of the dairy business was measured using the ratio between mean return on assets (ROA) minus an assumed 5% risk-free ROA, and the standard deviation of ROA was calculated from 300 combinations of climate, milk, and feed price, land appreciation, and interest rate. Four scenarios of autumn and spring supplementation of pasture were considered at each geographical location; imported maize silage (Base), a crop of maize silage grown on the milking platform (MSC; area used to produce milk), a crop of FB grown on the milking platform (FBC), and a FB crop with an outbreak of acute (1% stock fatality) and subacute ruminal acidosis (5% decline of feed intake) across the entire herd (FBAC). The MSC scenario improved EFS by 5.8% compared with Base in both the irrigated and the dryland system. The predicted response to MSC reflected greater milk production, lower feed expenses, and shorter crop rotation, compared with either Base, FBC, or FBAC. While FBC increased EFS by 4.8% compared with Base under irrigation, EFS was similar to Base under dryland conditions ($2711 and $2759/ha, respectively). The limited advantage of growing FB under dryland conditions reflect reduced herbage supply due to the extended crop duration of FB compared with maize silage. Model predictions suggest that FBAC will increase the financial risk by reducing milk production and EFS by 6.5% (irrigated) and 7.1% (dryland) compared with Base. In the absence of any adverse health risks, farm performance from the FBC scenario was comparable to that of MSC under irrigated conditions. However, in dryland conditions, and when the potential economic cost of acute and sub-acute ruminal acidosis is considered, there is little advantage to growing FB on the milking platform.

Suggested Citation

  • Fleming, Anita & Dalley, Dawn & Bryant, Racheal H. & Edwards, Grant & Gregorini, Pablo, 2021. "Fodder beet to support early and late lactation milk production from pasture, is it worth the risk?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:187:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x20308544
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308544
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102993?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Doole, Graeme J. & Romera, Alvaro J., 2015. "Trade-offs between profit, production, and environmental footprint on pasture-based dairy farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 14-23.
    2. Neal, Mark & Cooper, Simon, 2016. "Modelling the Risk, Return and Resiliency of Future Dairy Farm Systems," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235417, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. McCall, D. G. & Bishop-Hurley, G. J., 2003. "A pasture growth model for use in a whole-farm dairy production model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 1183-1205, June.
    4. Beukes, Pierre C. & Romera, Alvaro J. & Neal, Mark & Mashlan, Kim, 2019. "Performance of pasture-based dairy systems subject to economic, climatic and regulatory uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 95-104.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    2. Graeme J. Doole & Alvaro J. Romera & Alfredo A. Adler, 2012. "A Mathematical Optimisation Model of a New Zealand Dairy Farm: The Integrated Dairy Enterprise (IDEA) Framework," Working Papers in Economics 12/01, University of Waikato.
    3. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    4. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Beukes, P.C. & Gregorini, P. & Romera, A.J. & Dalley, D.E., 2011. "The profitability and risk of dairy cow wintering strategies in the Southland region of New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(7), pages 541-550, September.
    6. Thorn, Alexandra M. & Baker, Michael J. & Peters, Christian J., 2021. "Estimating biological capacity for grass-finished ruminant meat production in New England and New York," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    7. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. Cortez-Arriola, José & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Rossing, Walter A.H. & Scholberg, Johannes M.S. & Améndola Massiotti, Ricardo D. & Tittonell, Pablo, 2016. "Alternative options for sustainable intensification of smallholder dairy farms in North-West Michoacán, Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 22-32.
    9. Junqian Xu & Yuanyuan Wu, 2018. "A Comparative Study of the Role of Australia and New Zealand in Sustainable Dairy Competition in the Chinese Market after the Dairy Safety Scandals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Moulin, Thibault & Perasso, Antoine & Gillet, François, 2018. "Modelling vegetation dynamics in managed grasslands: Responses to drivers depend on species richness," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 22-36.
    11. Ramilan, Thiagarajah & Scrimgeour, Frank G., 2006. "Abatement Cost Heterogeneity and its Impact on Tradable Nitrogen Discharge Permits," 2006 Conference, August 24-25, 2006, Nelson, New Zealand 31972, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Mulindwa, Henry & Galukande, Esau & Wurzinger, Maria & Ojango, Julie & Okeyo, Ally Mwai & Sölkner, Johann, 2011. "Stochastic simulation model of Ankole pastoral production system: Model development and evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(20), pages 3692-3700.
    13. Romera, Alvaro J. & Doole, Graeme J. & Beukes, Pierre C. & Mason, Norman & Mudge, Paul L., 2017. "The role and value of diverse sward mixtures in dairy farm systems of New Zealand: An exploratory assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 18-26.
    14. Duru, M. & Adam, M. & Cruz, P. & Martin, G. & Ansquer, P. & Ducourtieux, C. & Jouany, C. & Theau, J.P. & Viegas, J., 2009. "Modelling above-ground herbage mass for a wide range of grassland community types," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 209-225.
    15. Baudracco, Javier & Lazzarini, Belén & Rossler, Noelia & Gastaldi, Laura & Jauregui, José & Fariña, Santiago, 2022. "Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    16. Moulin, Thibault & Perasso, Antoine & Calanca, Pierluigi & Gillet, François, 2021. "DynaGraM: A process-based model to simulate multi-species plant community dynamics in managed grasslands," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 439(C).
    17. Grigera, Gonzalo & Oesterheld, Martin & Pacin, Fernando, 2007. "Monitoring forage production for farmers' decision making," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 637-648, June.
    18. Perrin, Augustine & Cristobal, Magali San & Milestad, Rebecka & Martin, Guillaume, 2020. "Identification of resilience factors of organic dairy cattle farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    19. Vogeler, I. & Beukes, P. & Burggraaf, V., 2013. "Evaluation of mitigation strategies for nitrate leaching on pasture-based dairy systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 21-28.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:187:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x20308544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.